Jakeyjake

That is true, so my word choice was poor. They would be slaves: living beings who think and feel that I could bully and make do anything I want. That's the greatest appeal. The "persona" I'm revealing in this thread isn't a character though; it's actually the way I would act if I were a massive giant stranded on a planet or an island inhabited by flea-sized people. I'd be an absolute tyrant, using my jarred slaves as little beings I could unleash wrath upon due to any personal insecurity I experience at the time, any temporary frustration: but that would mostly be the men. If I had the means I would even place them in an enclosure where I could crouch down and hover a magnifying glass over them... I could see myself chasing each of them with precision as they scrambled, screaming, to avoid being disintegrated, while maintaining the composure of a curious but cold scientist watching with boyish fascination. With the tiny people contained in the darkness of my pocket, it would make me feel like Godzilla or a temperamental Greek deity, cold, callous, and whose actions and motivations are unknowable Striding around the world with literally dozens of tiny people plunged into the darkness of my shorts pocket, only seeing the light of day when I feel like removing them: that would be a euphoria like no other. I'd delight in the fact that when I lift their little bottle to my face, all they will see is a huge, grinning visage through the glass and they screamed and yelled and pleaded for their lives back. To me, they would be like crickets in a jar: powerless against my size. "That would be objectionable as in the case of having smaller people please you and clean you." Objectionable because of the nature of the tasks in question? Or because they would be forced? Would the tasks ever be done if not forced on them? I like your whale idea, by the way. Unfortunately, that would fall into the same category as masturbating (although where I would even put it?) And while I would probably masturbate a lot anyway, like any guy, I still wouldn't feel whole or completely satisfied in my manhood unless actual women were involved.

That isn't quite what I said. I was asking you how else to fulfill a very real physiological need. There is an oft cited psychological theory that certain needs must be met before others: it is called Mazslow's heirarchy of needs. It states that more abstract needs, like the ones you seem to want to champion, can't be met until physiological needs are secured sustainably. Clean air, water, food, temperature regulation, sleep, and sexual needs are included. My abduction idea is unethical you believe: okay. But you propose other grand, egalitarian ways to rule, yet there is an unfulfilled need still, and without satisfying it, you couldn't actualize your larger plans. Eventually chemicals, hormones, urges would take over: no matter how rational you can be, you are a male. So what would you propose? Castration? It's not a raw "insatiable hunger" as you put it, that I ask you to express an alternative. It is a physiological need that one way or another, as a giant, would need to be satisfied. Men have needs. What then would you do? Or if you don't want to answer that, what do you propose I should do in such a situation, that actually fulfills the need in question. For me it would be two jars that I keep in my pockets: one for sexual stimulation, containing women to stimulate me, and one to fuel my superiority complex, containing men to do all sorts of degrading tasks like raking up foot crud between my toes. Are these "harmful?"

Contrary to what you first think, I wouldn't objectionalize/objectify the tiny people. I would very much enjoy the idea that they were actual, real people I carry within my a jar in my pocket, almost like pets. They would be insurance against attacks yes, but knowing that they can comprehend me as an Old Testament god makes it all the better. Where stepping on ants is just mindless entertainment, dominating an intelligent species, people with lives and hopes and dreams, that would be meaningful power. Do you really imagine it would be that unpleasant for them for the women I abduct? Why? Here's another thing to pick your brain: would eliminating any resistance by force, or stamping, be considered "murder" in your eyes? Or would the size difference blur the line? Think: does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on? Is it really rape, what I do with the women? Men have needs, but people who rape have options. At that size, I wouldn't have many.

But Reality: look at North Korea. The Kim dynasty has been in power since before the 1950s: three generations I think? They have successfully held power through top-down control of the government, their ruling class, and their military. Kim Jong Un routinely utilizes oppression, fear, and yes, secret police to stifle uprisings. Every house in North Korea has a portrait of Kim Jong Un over their dinner table. He is worshipped as being about equal to a god. That method of control and brainwashing has worked for them for decades. The quality of life in North Korea is poor as a result of this, yes.. so production may be hurt. But as far as we we know, there isn't much crime in North Korea. Criminals aren't tolerated. You say that eventually the people would rise up against an oppressive giant.. but look at North Korea, where there have been no uprisings and one of the most authoritarian dictators in modern history. How does that fit into your theory about oppression, force, and brainwashing wouldn't work against the tiny people? From where I stand, it looks like subjugating can and has worked in the long run. If it works in North Korea, why wouldn't it work in the scenario in question? The approach of a power broker which I have trying to float (even though I find it very imperfect) wouldn't work because that would cause too much internal rivalry, you think. Then it seems that ruling as a god would: the tyrannical approach would be more effective and way more satisfying, and who wouldn't enjoy every second of it? My ideal society would have one law, one punishment: "Worship me, or I will stamp my feet on your cities." 😃 You skirt over an important question still: how else to satisfy male sexual needs as a lone giant amidst of race of people the size of ants or even smaller? You disapprove of my proposed methods (the taking of women) first because you believe the civilization would rise up to take them back. Are you sure? Kim Jong Un and the North Korean government kidnap and "make disappear" political rivals on a routine basis. Their families tend to go the same way. No one over there makes a peep, or they're next. And even I wouldn't just make them disappear utterly. In my case they would be protected inside a glass container and kept safely in the pocket of my shorts as I walk around, uncap their container whenever I want to use them to "take care of business." You say it's wrong because it signifies a superiority complex... well, who wouldn't have a bit of a superiority complex, if they were giant? Are you that incorruptible? Are you that sympathetic, rational, and evolved? In your first reply, even you stated you would stomp around and spit on them for fun.... Do you think you would be any kinder? Given enough time as a hulking titan, would your perception of them change? Are you that incorruptible? Are you that sympathetic, rational, and evolved? As for the tiny men I may or may not keep in another container: toying with them, how would what I described be harmful or unduly cruel?

Maintaining the balance may be challenging, but worst case I have the upper hand as the superior being. It is much like a mafia racket; you're spot on. And the mafia has existed a long time and many of the most prominent crime families have lived long, rich lives. However, in this scenario the "racket" wouldn't be totally one-sided like before. I would offer protection from foreign threats, and if they wished, crush foreign rivals. Arbitrary symbols of "wealth" such as gems, precious metals, or currency would have no value to me as giant, nor would a luxury fabrics or extravagant wardrobes. Wouldn't even need a t-shirt. I'd good with a pair of shorts and running shoes, which ideally I would have brought with me before becoming stranded. My greatest assets would be human capital and control over it: based on what you have told me (and I now agree with this) I would need to maintain an equilibrium with the tiny people in order to meet my physical needs and survive. Taking a hundred cows (as you referenced) wouldn't be necessary when they instead agree to build a hundred factory farms, each with a workforce to match. Child labor laws are for them to work out not me. Even if I wanted to, it would be unrealistic for me to regulate such things But you haven't come up with a better solution or even a suitable alternative than I have to the question: how else to satisfy male sexual needs as a lone giant amidst of race of people the size of ants or even smaller? As a fully developed adult male with a healthy sexual appetite, masturbating wouldn't fulfill the totality of it, and like any guy, I would still masturbate a lot anyway. Wouldn't you? And wouldn't you take advantage of the situation, like any proper guy would? Top down orders to their government and volunteers (which includes a brothel) being out of the question, there would no choice but to crouch down and take what I need by force. Gently pinching the tiny women in between my fingers and lowering them into my collection jar. Any husband or father screaming in objections tempts fate by gaining my notice. With a hundred or so wives and daughters trapped in a glass bottle in my pocket, yes, I would stop at around that number. Having enough tiny beings who can satisfy any inexplicable whims, caprices, and urges I have, at any time, by making them do any unspeakable yet stimulating thing on or to my penis to make me ejaculate -- that would serve both to satisfy my male sexual needs and fuel my sense of machismo. As a male you imagine it as unpleasant because it's another guy's dick. But they are women. Truth told, I would even keep second glass collection jar in my pocket, containing tiny men who I use as a focus for all my frustrations. I could think of plenty of fiendish ideas to prank them that wouldn't be harmful: tapping my fingernail on the glass, shaking them. I'm a pretty active guy; there would be no showers. As mentioned, putting them to work cleaning my sticky, smelly feet at the end of each day would feel absolutely delightful. And that scale, everything would be magnified to them, so they may want gas masks or hazmat suits. But then, what fun is that for me? 😃 Again, you see it as probably cruelly unpleasant: is it that, or is it just harmless fun at their expense?

That fits three of them, but how does it tear down mountains?

Donald Trump would love your eagerness to limit free speech. I am having difficulty making sense of what your issue with political speech in games is. Firstly, what game was that just so I have an idea of what you are talking about? Wow! It is definitely out of the norm, but not out of line. Here is what would be out of line: suppressing anybody's first amendment rights because of your personal distaste. If the creators wanted to boldly announce their political leanings within the game itself, that's their right as creators. If they are self-funded, self-published, or funded by a publisher who is willing to grant them that degree of independence, then who are you to say that it's an invasion of your "personal space" as you put it? The first amendment protects freedom of speech and that includes all forms of media including movies, books, and yes, games. The creative team didn't force themselves into your space. Instead, you INVITED them into your space by purchasing and playing the game. If you object to their speech, you retain the right to eject their product from your space. So they are not "invading" you. As for your opinion that they don't have the qualifications or moral right to lecture people on politics: are you serious? This is the United States: you don't need to have "qualifications" to exercise your right to free speech or talk about certain subjects, regardless of format. Do you not need "qualfiications" and a "moral right" to use political speech, but they do? Why -- and how would that be constitutional?

I was born 87 years ago. For 65 years I've ruled as Tamriel's emperor, but for all these years, I've never been the ruler of my own dreams. I have seen the gates of Oblivion, beyond which no waking eye may see. Behold, in darkness, a doom sweeps the land. This is the 27th of Last Seed, the year of Akatosh, 433. These are the closing days of the third era, and the final hours of my life.

Depends on the game. Wizards and sorcerers are defined and differentiated only in DnD that I know of. Most everywhere else, mage, wizard, and sorcerer are used interchangeably. In nearly every context they are used, they are pure magic users creating something out of nothing such as elemental based magic. I don't see sages often used in gaming, but they aren't as purely magical. They often use some weird ingredients, can be nature-related, and don't use magic as a way of direct confrontation. Priests are just healers almost everywhere. There are way too many different versions of schools of magic/disciplines to even go into. Depends on universe.

Homeworld / Homeworld Remastered.

Open world suffers single player or open world multiplayer. I like the idea of a hybrid between hack and slash and tabtarget/autoattack. There are a couple older games in Star Wars franchise: Jedi Academy and Jedi Outcast that I thought would be awesome in an open world multiplayer, even MMO style game, provided the combat and everything else were fleshed out suitably. But it was a hybrid combat system.

Yes, but everyone who does is above the age of 60.

I concede that my first proposal was flawed. You are assuming I am undermining the tiny people when it may not be the case in this new scenario. There is a chance that my approach could be mutually beneficial. We are both taking from each other, but we are both gaining something we wouldn't have had. I would be getting the adulation and dominance I want, while they would be getting my protection from enemies and raw power. It would be a legitimate way of ruling, if a bit harsh. Not necessarily malevolent. In exchange for their loyalty, I could protect them from all foreign threats. I could crush their enemies, deliver enemy leaders to them, conquer in both our names. As for establishing relations, there would be no need for me to infiltrate or be some great persuader. I would just announce that I wish to speak to their head of state or whoever governed them, then locate where there they preside. Before, my first instinct would be to just pick him up, hold him in front of my face, and say "You're going to do everything I say, or I'll squash you like a bug." However, I think there is a better approach, which would be to actually establish a legitimate relationship -- something I think you would support. Tell them I want to come to an arrangement that will help us both. In exchange, I want so and so. Surely you would agree with that is fair, right? It is rational and sympathetic, yes? I wouldn't need to establish a spy network or infiltrate them. It would be more like their government would just deploy their military to stop unrest. I wouldn't have to even tell them. What I am talking about is currying the favor with their head of state, their lawmakers, their elite, and by extension, their military. Rather than command them to do what I say or be crushed, I could instead do favors for them and tell them that in return I expect undying loyalty. I would make them genuinely want this new relationship because it benefits them. How would it then be undermining them? As for the tiny females I would keep in the glass container within my pocket, yes some would want them returned. So what? What are they going to do? Squeak at me from inside their prison? It would fall on huge, deaf, and frankly uncaring ears. Those who miss them would be outnumbered by the people who don't even know anything about the females I would capture. And like I said, I wouldn't abuse the women. That's the part you seem to be missing. I wouldn't damage them or crush them for no reason. I would need them as much as I would enjoy having them as company. What makes you sure they would even be unhappy or want to be returned? When not in the glass bottle within my pocket, they would have just a couple jobs: Marching along my penis shaft in order to arouse me enough me so that I ejaculate. Women have been doing that for men for ages. Also, to clean and scrub my sticky, smelly feet at the end of the day. I'm a pretty active guy, and they probably have no giant showers. You think they would revolt or break over that??

You propose peace, cooperation, and rationality as the best way forward, which aren't without merit, but here's a novel idea you may not have considered. What if it were possible to enjoy the best of both worlds? Approach under the guise of peace, engage with their head of state or whatever gnats they call leaders, and in exchange for unyielding loyalty, unquestionable obedience, and total worship, I promise safety for themselves, their families and those closest to them, and most importantly, the military. Even better, shower favor and reward their elite so that they genuinely prefer the new status quo over the old by ensuring they become the ruling class. Make it so they are no longer following me out of threat of force, but because I make their tiny lives even better for them. Then with a police state enforced, I could have eyes and ears in the places too small for me to uncover and smite any unruly dissenters. Eliminate the underground totally. I'm not sure why I didn't think of this before. I would want to preserve their population to more than sustainable level, because without my tiny adorants I would be truly stranded and alone. With the government and their military in hand, I would reduce my random acts of terror, something I imagine you would approve of, even while maintaining a very real and threatening presence to them. I wonder if you would still find that cruel? I think I agree that demoralizing them would be an effective method of suppressing rebellion only for as long as they feel they have something to lose. That is why by carrying a tiny glass jar in my pocket containing any number of their wives and daughters, I would be untouchable. As a fairly virile male, I would wish to establish my machismo and dominance... and I think even you couldn't blame me for that. By keeping a little batch of personal slaves on my person at all times, far above the reach of any would-be rescuers, they would not only help fulfill my sexual needs, but they would serve as my insurance against a surprise attack. If my intentions may sound unethical to you, I would challenge you to state why. Be aware that I would not needlessly cruel to my jarred slaves. Actually, they would be afforded protection. Would you still find it morally objectionable for me to maintain this little pocket prison then, and if so why? Even the hardest of their jobs wouldn't be that hard -- which I stated before. If the tiny people can endure the tropical humidity of a guy's crotch and the smell of my feet, they'll be fine. 😛 When you mention the potential for other civilizations, you give me an even better idea. You bring up the idea of allies, and while I can see the upside to to building these positive relationships that may help expand my influence, I wonder if you have considered the option of turning them against each other? If there were far off lands, inhabited by similarly tiny people, I could gain favor with my subjects by stamping out their enemies for them. I could my subjects enslave those I conquered. In that case, it would ba win/win. I would be #1 and I would have fairly secure power structure supporting me.

By the way, I fully understand your suggestion that I would be purposely instigating a situation where they would strike at me, because it would give me the justification to crush them into submission, and that may be true to some extent. Any attack, regardless of how feeble, would result in me stamping my feet on them as a matter of principle, and I would enjoy every second of it. What I am saying is I would want to test them to challenge me, until they reach a true breaking point. Once broken, I would have total control. As I said I would degrade them further by using the tiny jarred slaves in my pocket to stimulate my penis until I ejaculate, or put them on toejam removal duty from time to time, further demoralizing and breaking them. Do you really think they or their families below risk being eliminated than just complying my admittedly mostly harmless demands? For the record, I'm not saying anything I would be doing in this situation wouldn't be brutally selfish or cruel of me; I'm just arguing the merits of what I think would be the most effective way to rule for the longest period of time.

At first I thought maybe I would do the same as you in reference to intervening in their conflicts. But my hesitation is that I would always be wondering if I correctly picked who to intervene on behalf of, if it came to that. Even a side that might seem aggressive at one point in time may be just reacting to the side that is truly oppressive. At that point, I would likely have two armies who hate me. In this history of almost every country on this planet, foreign intervention in internal conflict has nearly always resulted in either a civil war or a division of nations. By enacting intervention immediately for what you think may be a violent conflict, you could just be precipitating way more conflict down the line. Would you agree that there is no easy answer to this scenario? Fear of a first attack by the tiny people isn't the primary reason I would want to gain control of them, so I think I misexpressed that. While certainly I would love to be seen as a god, and I'm sure any psychologist would have a field day psychoanalyzing why, that would still be only part of the reason I would wish to assert dominance. My motivation to gain control of them has less to do with thwarting potential attacks than it has to do with being able to influence, steer, and determine the course of whole civilization of people in any way I would like in order to explore the outcomes. I would be just as much motivated by curiosity and fascination. But I think people who live in a state of constant fear and paranoia will not organize. From where I stand, being as cruel as possible and terrorizing them from time to time would do that. Terrorizing them not because they did anything to anger me, but just to remind them what can happen, at any random time, for any reason -- or even better, for no reason at all -- depending on nothing but my mood. When the Nazis attacked France and crushed it, demoralizing the populace, there was no French resistance. Solid fact, because all people can be cowed and broken by somebody who attacks civilian structures. Hell, Britain conceded as soon as it was bombed. And as stated, I would go after their civilian structures. You say they would rather die than be subjected to cruelty, but I tend to believe the majority wouldn't. Survival at any cost is what governs. Keeping their wives, daughters, even small children, within a little glass bottle inside my pocket would undoubtedly enrage their fathers and husbands. They would go absolutely crazy, never knowing how I was using them to satisfy my inexplicable whims and caprices, or as a focus to take out my frustrations upon. But since I would be absolutely titanic in size to them, there would be nothing they could do about it, unless they were prepared to repel another Attack of the Giant White Sneaker. For that reason, I think that maintaining those tiny captives and carrying within my pocket would demoralize the tiny race even further rather than incite them to retaliate. Let's not forget that historically, rape has been used as an effective tool to demoralize subjugated foes. Although I would be too massive in size for such a thing, this would be even more effective knowing it would take place in plain sight of all of them. At that size, I wouldn't have to worry about image or perception. The thoughts of such tiny people would hold no weight over me when I could squash them like I would any bug. Their entire race would be in a perpetual hostage crisis. And that would prevent any uprisings. I would not reduce their population to a non-sustainable size. I agree there is a difference between surviving and thriving. I wouldn't want to be reduced to living by a flight or fight response only. However, rationality doesn't really apply to fight or flight, because it's an instinctive reaction that reason doesn't factor into. Even so, that doesn't mean there isn't rationality behind why it exists and why it is beneficial. Correct, my DNA couldn't mix with people 1000 times smaller than me. But that is why I mentioned it if they sufficient technology. If they were similarly advanced to us, they could easily decode the sequence of nucleic acid chains in my DNA. If they were just tiny humans, perhaps they could use that to artificially replicate that was suitably compatible using my genetic material. 😀 Obviously, we're talking about science fiction level technology, but that is what this whole thread is sort of based on. Would I really be devolving then?

By the way, I agree with you more than you think. But in my last post I stated what were my primary motivations for the demands that I would impose on the tiny people, if I were the giant. Why do you believe they are objectionable, when they serve to fulfill needs that I have no control over? By doing all I can to ensure my survival and even legacy on the alien planet in question, is that really "devolved" as you put it? To seem it seems evolved: that's why survival is all about, after all. You seemed to agree that leaving them alone might not be possible, and that even mediating their conflicts might not be possible. So then what? If you intervened on either side, you would have already used force and become something of an authoritarian yourself. You would have only achieved what you achieved through having greater power. Also, let's say even before I got to know the tiny people, they launched the full force of their military at me. Would you still think I would not be justified in crushing their forces and then subjugating them?

Why do you call it a lonesome existence? From where I stand, the chance to be worshipped as a god would be a fantasy too good to pass up. 😛 I appreciate your honesty in stating even you wouldn't be sure how to react if drawn into their internal conflicts. Unfortunately, it probably would not be clear who the primary aggressors are in any of their conflicts . Even on our own world, it is often unclear. I'm pretty sure I can imagine how much harder it would be if I were the giant with them being so tiny and almost indiscernible from each other. Think about it: they would have been living in a world far, far below mine: all of their internal "conflicts" that would be so crucial to them would be petty and small to me. Their squabbles would seem ridiculous. Their "ideological battles" that involve religion, race, economic class...their so-called culture wars: they would be utterly meaningless to me, each of them negated and made insignificant by my very existence. Just by being there, I will have up-ended everything they ever knew and any sense of self-importance they thought they had. And while they would be living in a world far below mine, I would be existing in a world that is far above their perception: a huge, cold, and distant being who is unreachable -- unknowable even. Towering over them, they couldn't possibly understand my motivations. For example: say that a couple of their towns were threatened by a potential overflowing of their lakes and rivers. These bodies of water would be nothing more than inch-deep puddles to me. Even if I wanted to protect them, I could plant my foot down in front of one of their coastal towns to divert a potential flood... but being too tiny to recognize the danger they were in, they may just think I'm toying with or intimidating them by stomping their lake. Even traversing their sparsely populated or wooded areas, it would be all too likely that many would be stepped on and they would hate me forever. Anyway: you ask what my goal would be as the giant among the flea-sized people. Assuming that I'm stranded and I'm there for the long run. Yes, my goals would be to live, dominate, and be worshipped as a god. What else would you expect, though? I'm a guy. I wouldn't need to rely strictly on masturbation to fulfill my sexual needs. With a race of tiny people at my command, I would keep a batch as personal slaves in some sort of glass container I could fit into my pocket. Then, whenever I want, I could force them to do the unspeakable, knowing that refusal meant I would stamp my feet on their towns even more than usual. I could having them march up and down my penis shaft, causing all sorts of delightful sensations, until I ejaculate. With sufficient technology, perhaps they could then fertilize all of their females with my spermatozoa. 😀

That second to last sentence should read "It would be a question of whether to interfere in their conflicts, or wait for them to involve me in them."

I appreciate your honesty. However, I don't know if I misexpressed myself but there would be very material reasons I would want to subjugate them. In the post you quoted, I listed tangible needs that one way or another, would need to be fulfilled. As to why domination would be my first choice: in that situation, I have a sense that such a tiny race would see a giant as an existential threat and would plot to take me out, which I would be insane to allow. As well, if I were stranded, I'm not sure it would be even possible to cooperate or leave them alone. Given limited resources and limited space, eventually I would get sucked into their own conflicts. It would be a question of whether to interfere in their conflicts, or wait for them to involve you me them. Why give up the upper hand by waiting?

I don't agree with your statement that you can't just choose what you want to sympathize with. I don't think I would sympathize with someone who would hit a dog, for example. As for the chance of reducing conflict: Well.. I suppose there is always the soft approach that includes helping them and cooperating, but I feel that's less advantageous and opens myself up to being exploited or even attacked while unaware. Letting them organize or even maintain a military seems insane to me, in that situation. Even if I were some hulking titan to such tiny beings, I would be just one against many. Let them have weapons they could turn against me at any time? That's nuts. I would crush their military first thing, then target the structures they’d normally consider sacrosanct – civilian targets. I’d stamp my feet down on their schools, hospitals, nursing homes. Imagine how powerful a deterrent it could be, if it was made clear that any dissent would result in a gargantuan white sneaker coming down to flatten a school building or the nursing home granny is playing bingo in. *crunch!* The little guys wouldn't dare risk striking back. People who live in a state of constant terror and paranoia are easily controlled and unlikely to organize. Plus, like I said, I would want to conquer them rather than cooperate. Why would I want them standing on their own feet, when I could force them to their knees and have thousands kissing mine? 😃 Would that make me a bad guy? I don't think so, and most people think I'm not. I guess my feeling is, at the end of the day does godzilla care about the humans he steps on? At that size, I sure wouldn't. But then again, I'm the kind of guy who steps on bugs instead of around them.

I disagree with your statement that there is nothing to gain by dominating them. I can think of plenty that they could offer, especially if I was stranded in an alien environment with limited resources which is what took place in the episode in question. I'd have very mindful and utilitarian reasons for the use of my power, which wouldn't necessarily result in any destruction. So I think you're incorrect in saying they would have nothing to offer. Food for example would be pretty important. At the size shown in the OP, I feel that an advanced enough civilization could sustain such a giant being. Given, their scale would surely require a concerted effort to support my appetite. They would need to devote an absurdly huge portion of their economy, industry, and labor to the task, but I do think it would be possible. I might also need them to locate bodies of water for me to consume. As well, I do have male sexual needs. If I were isolated I have to fulfill those needs somehow. I'm a pretty creative guy, and I can think of plenty of ways the little guys could help with that. 😃

I don't feel as though I would have lost humanity. As I said in my original post, I'm a pretty good guy by most standards. And I am fully capable of sympathy. I'm just more sympathetic to some than to others. In the situation I described, I would be sympathetic to them, but it would be after I crushed their military and forced them into submission. The alternative to dominating them would be to leave them alone but I actually don’t think that would be possible. Eventually such a tiny race will want to either fight with or involve such a giant being in their own conflicts. Here’s another question: if they preemptively attacked, do you think it would be justified for me to retaliate in force? Would they be justified in trying to take out an unknown threat just because I'm a giant to them?

I would never abuse animals myself... I have a dog and would be really pissed at anyone who hurt him. I do step on bugs, though, often purposely. But what could I say: I'm a guy. 😛 I agree with you that wanting to dominate them would be authoritarian. What I am saying is that I wouldn't mind being authoritarian in that situation. If I were the giant invader to some tiny race of aliens, I would fully intend to fulfill the role of the dominant oppressor. Would I be losing my humanity in that case, or living up to it?

This thread is inspired by an old thread I made about whether or not it is wrong to step on bugs, but with a different subject. There is an episode of the Twilight Zone called the Little People where a couple astronauts get stranded on a distant planet and while repairing their ship, they stumble upon a tiny civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people who are at least sophisticated enough to build houses, boats, trucks, cities. They appear to be identical to humans in all aspects except their size. Stills from episode: As you can picture, what happens next is an alien version of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. One of the astronauts decides he’s going to be their god and begins to dominate the little people through fear and cruelty, based on no godly qualities except the advantage of having evolved to be massively bigger than them. It was a cool episode. Anyway, what’s interesting (at least to me) is that I don’t think I’d act very differently from that guy in his circumstance. If I somehow came across a planet (or better yet, an island) of tiny little people that were the size of fleas or smaller to me, I could see myself immediately taking advantage of the fact that I would be a a giant to them. I would love the chance to be revered (and even feared) as a god. Furthermore the chance to have total control over the development of an entire society would greatly appeal to me. Why let them have self-determination if through sheer force, I could make them engineer their society in my own image? In spite of what I’d do in the above situation, I wouldn’t consider myself to be an evil or bad guy. Far from it actually. I’m generally considered to be an all-around great guy by friends and coworkers. I volunteer as an EMT and coach track for no pay. And besides the fact that I have no problem stepping on bugs (which I'll admit to doing often), I'm great with animals. How would you behave when in a situation where you gain absolute power over others? Would you be kind or cruel? Or would you walk away from the situation? Try to stay respectful of one another!